What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

David Benkof: Behind the Mask

At first glance, David Benkof appears to be a young gay man who believes that same-sex marriage will damage the institution of marriage, that there are better options for gay couples than marriage, that the community should join him in prioritizing other more pressing issues, and that the marriage discussion is harming the efforts of gay couples in red states to get recognition for their unions. He also claims that he’s a gay columnist, that he speaks for an influential collection of gay thinkers, and that he is part of the gay and lesbian community and that he shares our goals and dreams. But none of that is true.

“Repeat After Me”: The Reparative Therapy Echo Chamber

The April 2008 edition of the pay-to-publish vanity journal Psychological Reports featured a new report from NARTH. Written by NARTH president A. Dean Byrd, past president Joseph Nicolosi, and Richard W. Potts, the report carries the unwieldy but self-descriptive title, “Clients perceptions of how reorientation therapy and self-help can promote changes in sexual orientation.” While the title describes what the authors meant to show — how clients describe the benefits of reparative therapy — the report itself actually illustrates something very different: the ex-gay movement’s remarkable ability to instill an almost robot-like parroting of ex-gay rhetoric among their clients.

Testing the Premise: Is MRSA The New Gay Plague?

The Toronto Star said that a new study “discover[ed] a new strain” of a super-bug “hitting gay men.” Headlines in Britain screamed, “Flesh-eating bug strikes San Francisco’s gay community,” and anti-gay extremists across America spread the alarm that gays were introducing another plague into “the general population.” But there was a small problem with all of this: None of it is true!

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Review: The Gay Report

When Karla Jay and Allan Young published The Gay Report in 1979, it quickly a favorite source of statistics for many anti-gay extremists. But before you accepts these statistic at face value, you should examine the inner workings of this survey very carefully. What you learn might surprise you.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.

All Of Those Gay Friends You Say You Have? They Are No Longer Your Friends

Jim Burroway

November 13th, 2008

Yesterday, Timothy Kincaid provided a first-hand account of the meeting at LA’s El Coyote Cafe to listen to Marjorie Christoffersen explain her decision to contribute to the Yes on 8 campaign. This decision was particularly painful to El Coyote’s mix of loyal gay and straight customers. Now, via Queerty, we have video of the event.

The first video is of Marjorie Christoffersen’s talk before the crowd.

So far, so good.

That is, until they decided to take questions from the audience:

Those who voted to disenfranchise their gay and lesbian neighbors have been stunned at the outpouring of anger over the passage of Propositions 8, 102 and 2 (in California, Arizona and Florida, respectively).

It’s mystifying to me, but they seemed genuinely surprised that people that they thought they knew and loved would be angry to see their rights put up to a vote and defeated. It mystifies me because I wonder how many straight people would put up with the idea that their right to marry should be subject to a vote — and they lose that vote? How would they react?

And now many of those people who voted against us and who gave money to a cause to render us second-class citizens, they fall back on the defense that “many of my best friends are gay.”

Well, that doesn’t work anymore. Here’s a news flash: All those gay friends you have? If you supported Prop 8 (or Prop 102 or Amendment 2), they are no longer your friends. You can safely drop that line of defense.

David C.

This is exactly the wrong attitude to have if we are to win hearts and minds in the culture war.

Take a deep breath and think.

Now is the time to start the education process. Only by dialogue can we hope to change the attitudes of others deceived by the hateful messages of those that would take away our rights.

Friends and acquaintances that will at least listen to us because they know us are more likely to respond to our message of love. If they remain obdurate in spite of that effort, then reevaluate your relationship with them.

Jeff in Surprise, Az

Yea. That’s how it should be. I’ve gone so far as telling my sibs, vote for Prop. 8 and forget you know me. Show me that your words are real feelings.

For the last 20 years or so, gay’s have been the frog that was put into the pot of cold water. Then, very slowly the heat was turned up boiling us to death. We’ve finally awaken to realize it.

If you don’t know the story: (I give credit to Rachel Maddow for this.) If you put a frog into a pot of hot water, it will jump out. Put the same frog into a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat, you will boil it to death.

As I said in earlier post it’s time for another Stonewall. Hopefully, this Saturday the nation will see that we are a force. I’m not advocating anything like what happened 40 years ago, only that we need to show everyone that we demand the same rights and respect as all other Americans.

I want my son to be proud of his fathers, and just as proud of the history we can make happen by working together.

Timothy Kincaid

Dialogue is what that meeting was about. I went expecting an apology, a retraction. I heard a defense and the assumption that I must just accept it. And then after the first question, when it became clear that “I love my church” wasn’t going to be an acceptable defense, she fled.

The voice you hear yelling “you are not my friend” was the only person I identied there as an activist rather than a patron. He was mostly hushed and ignored.

But what he said has merit. By the time that we left, I don’t think there was anyone there who thought that the ownership of El Coyote was our friend – and that includes several who had previously considered Margie as such.

Incidentally, the one defending the Mormon Church is Margie’s daughter.

David C.

Clearly, this is complicated. I’m no more happy about this whole sorry turn of events than any other person that would like to marry their same-sex partner of 30 years and now can’t do that in the state where they live.

And yes, in this particular case, it looks like the support we once thought came from this particular establishment turns out to be hypocritical. The only thing I’m trying to get everybody to do in the current and very emotionally charged aftermath is to stop and reconnect to our own values. We will regret reacting in the wrong way to all of this without careful thought. I’m not speaking just about this case.

Yes this matters. Yes it’s tough to take, but it won’t get any better if start to behave like the other side. Sure we need to fight back, and that may mean reevaluating who are friends are, and no I don’t think we should be willing to give them a pass, but we should exercise great care to understand for each person we will come into conflict with on this issue exactly what drove them to act against us.

AJD

I’ve had this sort of experience for a long time, talking to some of the more conservative people I know. The thing is, they just don’t see opposition to gay rights or the idea that it’s “immoral” for two men or two women to have a relationship together as being homophobic or bigoted, and they’ve even accused me of being bigoted or hateful when I’ve called them out on it. To them, they’re just being true to what the Bible says about homosexuality. And, of course, I’ve heard the old “but I’ve got gay friends” line a million times, too.

Maybe this is a little hyperbolic of me, but something about this type of thinking has always left me thinking of Hannah Arendt’s idea of the “banality of evil.” I mean, people like Margie Christofferson and the conservative types I’ve spoken with seem genuinely convinced they mean well, no matter how many people their attitudes and actions hurt.

Zeke

It’s very important to understand that NO ONE is telling them what they can and can’t BELIEVE. They can believe anything they want. What I, and others, have a problem with is having someone else take away my CIVIL/LEGAL/STATE GRANTED rights based on THEIR belief.

I am sick to the gills of these religious people screaming VICTIM, VICTIM, VICTIM! Complaining that WE are trying to take away THEIR rights not a full week after they actually did take away ours.

A “right” that was pulled out of thin air by a handful of leftist judges is not a right at all. Marriage has been around for at least 10,000 years and it has never included same sex couples, animals or inanimate objects until now. Why is that, do you think? Was EVERY society in human history “homophobic” (a bogus, made-up word, btw) or were they correct in assuming that a man and a woman made up a family, the cornerstone of society? Sir Elton John is right: If it was called “civil unions” or anything but marriage, it wouldn’t be as big a deal, but then that wouldn’t accomplish the destruction of society, which is the real hidden agenda, now would it? Oh, and it’s so brave to protest the Mormons and assault 80 year old white ladies, but I notice there are no huge demonstrations in Compton or Oakland. Wonder why?

AJC

“Marriage has been around for at least 10,000 years and it has never included same sex couples.”

Lies, lies, and more damned lies.

“Same-sex marriage is nothing new. Many cultures embraced same-sex marriage throughout history. The ancient Romans allowed two men to ‘brother’ each other. This was a legally binding arrangement that included the granting of certain property rights to the union. Same-sex marriages have taken place in parts of China, Japan, South America, North America, Europe, and the Mediterranean. Native American cultures embraced same-sex marriage. The very ground we stand upon, therefore, may be ground where same-sex marriages might have taken place hundreds of years ago.”

Stefano A

tjc, I think a lot of their “gay friends” are people they’ve casually met and chatted with who happen to be gay, not friends in the genuine sense.

Sometimes I wonder if that’s not the case.

I’ve always been one to say that I think the word “friend” is sometimes used a rather too loosely.

There have been several occasions when I’ve had to point out to someone that, “No, I’m not you’re friend. We’re close acquaintances who regularly see each, but we’re not “friends”, in the sense that you’re in my close inner circle of confidants and companions.” Sometimes they’re offended by that, but it’s the truth. I select my friends very carefully and there are very few people I consider friends, although I have numerous acquaintances I associate with.

Rob Lll

I appreciate both the content and tenor of your posts. You are right in pointing out that, as a general principle, it’s better to build bridges than to burn them.

However, like you say, there does come a point where you need to reconsider certain relationships and say “Enough. We’re done”. For some people, that time is now. It’s much too soon to expect any efforts at conciliation with “friends” who betrayed us with their support for these laws. I think such an expectation is not only unrealistic, but inappropriate at this time.

No doubt some decisions will be made in anger which will be regretted later on. But anger eventually subsides and a more dispassionate state of mind takes hold. And when it does, you know what? I think we’ll see the broken relationships and the ensuing pain as a necesary step forward, not with regret.

I know that sounds awfully cold-blooded.

But I think we’ve gotten lazy in assuming that knowing us will eventually bring people over to our side. This grossly underestimates the tenacity of anti-gay sentiment. It’s true that those who know out gay people are more likely to support our aspirations to equality. But it doesn’t automatically work that way, not with everyone.

Much of the time, a positive acquaintance with a gay person can erode an anti-gay mindset. But sometimes, it can *enable* it.

When we hear the standard line “Some of my best friends are (gay, black, Jews, etc.)”, what’s really being said is: I have a positive relationship with member of X group, therefore I cannnot possibly hold any animosity or prejudice towards X people nor could ever act unjustly towards them.

If only it were that that simple. The truth is it’s entirely possible to know and like an individual member of X group while harboring bigoted sentiments towards the group as a whole. “Oh, but he’s one of the good ones”. How many times have we heard that?

In these cases, the positive relationship with a gay person (and I agree with AJC that very often it’s a mere aquaintance and not anything more) gives this person a kind of cover, “plausible deniability”, an excuse not to examine his/her feelings towards X group or the consequences of his/her actions towards them. It’s all really perverse, illogical, and sad but that’s human nature for you.

What’s happening right now is that some people are being confronted with the contradictions inherent in this cognitive dissonance. Of course it’s unpleasant — pretty much nobody wants to be thought of as a bigot.

Some people are going to shut down completely and stop listening, which is a shame. But I wonder how many of them would ever have been changeable?

Some will have the character to reflect after the hurt and shock wear off. They will engage in the difficult task of imagining oneself in the shoes of “the Other” and the even more difficult and often painful work of self-scrutiny, incumbent upon anyone who wants to live a just life. I think many of them will come around to the conclusion that they wronged us.

I don’t think this is far-fetched. Many people, gay and straight, have analogous experiences in their personal lives. You get dumped by someone, you hate them for a while, but then the feeling wears off, you think about it and realize…well, it mostly was your fault, wasn’t it? You didn’t listen. You should’ve paid attention, but you didn’t.

Whatever the individual outcome, one thing is for sure. The fall-out from last Tuesday’s vote has clarified for a lot of people that their support for Prop 8 constituted much more than the mere expression of an opinion on same-sex marriage. It was a deed, not a statement.

And now they know that such actions have consequences in their lives as well as ours. That is not a bad thing.

Lynn David

It seems that as much as the message was not conveyed by the “No on 8″ organizations, we as individuals did not convey our own messages.

I am reminded of the post by Timothy Kincaid about his mother’s neighbor and her “Yes on 8″ sign. And how it disappeared when he wrote her a letterr. It seems that all of us need to be vocal to those we know. It’s a continuation of coming out – or rather, coming out is a continual, neverending process in that respect. I even had to do it with my cousin about what her vote for McCain would mean to me, to all of us. She did not realize the consequences of her vote to my life. We cannot fade into the woodwork like we might prefer, we must stand out – and do it boldly.

Stefano A

Much of the time, a positive acquaintance with a gay person can erode an anti-gay mindset. But sometimes, it can *enable* it.

When we hear the standard line “Some of my best friends are (gay, black, Jews, etc.)”, what’s really being said is: I have a positive relationship with member of X group, therefore I cannnot possibly hold any animosity or prejudice towards X people nor could ever act unjustly towards them.

As was this:

Whatever the individual outcome, one thing is for sure. The fall-out from last Tuesday’s vote has clarified for a lot of people that their support for Prop 8 constituted much more than the mere expression of an opinion on same-sex marriage.

This is a very much needed clarification. Too many people view these votes on gay rights issues as being of no more consequence than a disagreement over a school bond issue or a zoning regulation.

A perception that the leaders of the Yes on 8 Campaign are still promoting.

Especially with his comment regarding churches. When they enter the political arena and impose religious beliefs, I really fail to see how just because it’s a religious belief or religious institution that suddenly removes them from accountability.

I also fail to see how boycotts are trampling anyone’s rights. Such a statement is especially ironic coming from the Yes on 8 co-aliation who has been demanding boycotts of gay supportive businesses for years.

That said, if the protest at el Coyote’s went down as this article portrays it, then I do think that is crossing the line and people need to take a step back.

I have no problem with people taking their business dollars elsewhere or a public protest but the protest act seems to be crossing the line into exacting revenge and retribution disproportionate to a $100 donation and becoming more of a displacement of a generalized outrage onto a single person and that, to me, is becoming hateful mob mentality.

Andrew

I have to agree with the “enough is enough” crowd. Just today I received an HRC “pledge” that had more to do with what I could do to support “those who disgree with you” than with anything to do with the group they serve. Even the gay leadership seems surprised by the our anger. Perhaps seeing ourselves outvoted by caged chickens (CA Prop 2) and pregnant teenagers (CA Prop 10) – or even a presidential election I never expected to see in my lifetime – has crystalized this question for many of us. I’m done singing and dancing and playing the good gay boy who everyone loves.

Listen to Margie’s comments again… I couldn’t miss the pity and condescension to the gay individuals in the crowd. Pity and tolerance is a far cry from respect and equal regard. We don’t need the scraps from Margie’s table. But she sure as heck needs our hard earned money so she can donate to causes she believes in. Me, I’m inclined to deny her that opportunity. And to those who suffer peripherally, I’m sorry. But surely someone responsible for as many as Margie should have seen cause and effect beforehand.

Laura

The thing that nobody seems to be talking about is that this is not about religion. The political arena is not the place to express your religious beliefs. If you believe that gay marriage is wrong then send your elders out to preach that belief, preach to your fellow parishioners, don’t get a gay marriage yourself but don’t put it in the constitution.

What happened to the separation of church and state? What happened to freedom of religion, which is also to say freedom from religion?

What Ms. Christoffersen seems to be saying is that she either doesn’t understand this separation or doesn’t respect it. Indeed religious and political beliefs may be in contradiction to each other at times. However, it is the resolve of Americans to respect this separation that has allowed LDS to flourish in this country (as well as many other religions).

What really mystifies me is that people like Ms. Christoffersen fail to see this hypocrisy.

Johno

I’ve said this here before, and I really believe it: No matter what the opinions of the people on the ground in the Pro 8 camp, I truly believe this huge focus and push is ultimately a concerted effort to evaporate that line between church and state. This is the plan at the highest levels. This is why I wish our campaign focused more on the distinction between religious and legal marriage. And focused on the terror everyone, not just gays, should feel when a religious group other than your own (or even your own if you are fair-minded and truly believe in religious freedom as an American principle,) has that kind of power. This wave of amendments, all of it, is a power grab by religious orgs to obliterate this important line via unfortunate semantics. I wonder, as legal marriage laws were written, if anyone considered it a “religious term”. Abortion up next.

Sir Elton John is right: If it was called “civil unions” or anything but marriage, it wouldn’t be as big a deal, but then that wouldn’t accomplish the destruction of society, which is the real hidden agenda, now would it?

How ironic that someone using the Democratic Underground url embedded in their name would parrot so vigorously the Religious Right. Apparently Nader was correct in this at least that there isn’t a damn difference between the Republicans and Democrats, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. However, that aside let’s address the substance of your rhetoric here, while ignoring the absurd hyperbole. It is a flat-out lie to say that the religious folks are only looking to protect the so-called sanctity of marriage. Most of the amendments that have passed, including in my home state of Virginia, prohibit domestic partnerships/civil unions. This is an attack against ALL same-sex arrangements. You lack credibility in your assertions because of this. This was seen in Arkansas recently where the homphobes were so adamant in keeping legal barriers against gays that they’ve not only banned them from adopting kids but single heterosexuals as well. Is this a republic governed by civil law or damned theocracy? Make up your friggin’ mind!

Patrick

“Marriage has been around for at least 10,000 years and it has never included same sex couples, animals or inanimate objects until now.”

This is a blatant lie. Even Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton has recognized that same-sex marriages have existed: “my paper does refer the reader to specific examples of woman-woman marriages, as the anthropologists call to them”, fromhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/26/1696

The fact is when religious leaders tell their followers same-sex marriages have never existed, they are either ignorantly misleading, deceiving, or deliberately lying their followers.

It is time the GLBT community educates itself on issues related to the Bible, marriage, and Evangelical beliefs. We must intelligently and reasonably challenge the lies put forth against us. It won’t convince the fundamentalists, their arguments are impervious to reason, but it will influence those in the middle – and they are the “swing vote”.

How my fellow straight sovereigns can vote against gay rights and think their gay friends won’t mind is unrealistic. What if gays were denying straights the right to marry.

Tony Perkins was on AC360 saying gays can’t redefine marriage. Christianity itself redefined the God Concept and Religion. Many Christians were Jews then redefined themselves. Even within the Christian cult there are many sects, Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Mormons. All these different sects redefining their Christian cult.

This is typical hypocritical Dominion Fundamentalism.

Glad to be an Atheist secular liberal and that the United States of America was founded on secular reason and common sense.

There is also the unrealistic superstitious bull that if men can marry men then this will lead to men marrying goats. Marriage or any human union is based on consent. Then it stands to reason that a goat can not consent to marriage.

We as a society have determined that young children can not also consent to marriage and we make marriage illegal for youngsters till they are of the ‘age of consent’.

As the GWBush administration has proven, Christians lie, cheat and steal to promote and support their agenda. It seems many among us are not of the ‘age of reason’.

We can build a better foundation which morality allows. We need a secular return to Ethics which are the rock of our progressive evolution and the American Foundation.

It’s mystifying to me, but they seemed genuinely surprised that people that they thought they knew and loved would be angry to see their rights put up to a vote and defeated.

I find this mystifying as well, though for a different reason:

If one is actually surprised that their “dearly valued gay friends” are upset that one voted away their right to enjoy the same marital protections with their partner as married heterosexuals have, it tells me that they haven’t actually talked to their “dearly valued gay friends” about this issue. And that boggles my mind. How can you support an amendment — whether monetarily or just by voting for it — and never even talk about it with those dear friends that would be directly affected by it? It makes no sense to me.

Timothy Kincaid

I don’t think that “Race Bannon” intended to be ironic. And I suspect that he thinks the things he wrote are truthful.

And I very much doubt that Race will be back to debate his points; he’s more likely a drive-by commenter. But sometimes something is so astonishingly ill informed that you have to parse it as an example of the mindset of those who are so filled with animus that they will tell themselves ANYTHING that supports bigotry.

A “right” that was pulled out of thin air by a handful of leftist judges is not a right at all.

The CA Supreme Court is considered moderately conservative, and is comprised of six Republicans and one Democrat. They are hardly “activist judges” and to call them “leftist” is lunatic.

The principal they applied in finding that gay people are entitle to the same rights as straight people dates back to the founding of our nation. It is the logical interpretation of the same principal that said that kings and nobles have no more inherent rights than farmers and silversmiths.

The idea is that all men are created equal and should be weighed without preference or prejudice before law. Of course, originally “all men” were white male Christian landowners. But time has revealed that “all men” includes those who are black or impoverished or Muslim or female – though every revelation was fought by those who felt they would lose prestige and privelige.

Marriage has been around for at least 10,000 years and it has never included same sex couples, animals or inanimate objects until now.

Recorded history only goes back about 6,000 at most. What we know about marriage is limited and any claims about 10,000 years ago display ignorance – but what we know of history reveals that there have been in many societies at many times same-sex relationships granted various degrees of recognition – often similar to those of common opposite-sex recognition.

Why is that, do you think? Was EVERY society in human history “homophobic” (a bogus, made-up word, btw) or were they correct in assuming that a man and a woman made up a family, the cornerstone of society?

The idea of a man and a woman as a cornerstone of society is especially modern. God and king, god and man, landowner and serf, priest and parish, there were a lot of “cornerstones” of society. Seldom did they include women.

Sir Elton John is right: If it was called “civil unions” or anything but marriage, it wouldn’t be as big a deal, but then that wouldn’t accomplish the destruction of society, which is the real hidden agenda, now would it?

I think I can speak at least for the authors of this site when I say that the three of us kinda like society and don’t want to see it destroyed. I, for one, don’t know how to work a plow or a loom and I think toothpaste is a wonderful product so I’d prefer that society remain.

Oh, and it’s so brave to protest the Mormons and assault 80 year old white ladies, but I notice there are no huge demonstrations in Compton or Oakland. Wonder why?

I guess he missed the Oakland demonstration. But I, for one, am not protesting Compton because no one who lives there planned, funded, or implemented a campaign of lies and bigotry. In fact, only ten Compton residents gave to the Yes on 8 campaign, most of whom seem to be Pacific Islanders, likely Tongan Mormons.

Tim,
Thanks for refuting Race. I haven’t the energy and you got all of the points down.

I wonder about something sometimes.

If marriage is such an important word, why has it been left in the certifiably shakey hands of government? Why is it STILL there? Those offended by gay marriage in CA, or MA, or CT….why you trying to change marriage back instead of taking it away? Seriously, if the government has proven itself incapable of protecting and taking care of such an important and “sanctified” institution, why not take it away from them altogether?

This is the compromise that would be perfectly acceptable to me. Let’s take a a couple thousand bottles of white out and apply a swipe over every instance of the word “marriage” in our legal and legislative documents. Then write in “Civil Union”.

IF the objection is truly over the word, “Marriage” then this seems logical. One side wants equality, the other side seems to not want the word marriage to take on an additional meaning. Since creating a seperate institution is patently unfair, then let’s just remove the word “Marriage” altogether from our legal and government system?

Civil unions for gays, civil unions for straights. You can call yourself married or not, but as far as the government is concerned “marriage” doesn’t mean anything to them.

Ostiarius

“The CA Supreme Court is considered moderately conservative, and is comprised of six Republicans and one Democrat. They are hardly ‘activist judges’ and to call them ‘leftist’ is lunatic.”

Ah, yes, this anemic argument. Being appointed by a Republican does not a conservative justice make. The four in the majority engaged in transparent judicial activism and their decision was leftist. As Byron White wrote in Moore v. City of East Cleveland:

The Judiciary, including this Court, is the most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or even the design of the Constitution.

“The principal they applied in finding that gay people are entitle to the same rights as straight people dates back to the founding of our nation.”

Pull the other leg. The CA Constitution and the US Constitution must be read in the socio-historical context in which they were written and amended; no “right” to gay “marriage” is contained therein.

Jeremy

I’m new here, so maybe someone can explain this to me. This is a blog for gay people and their friends to discuss the issues of the day, at least that’s what it appears to be. Who are these homophobes dropping these little antagonistic posts? Don’t they have their own blog? What’s the purpose? Are they just trying to remind us how crazy they are? That can’t be right. I don’t go to Focus on the Family website and tell them how great sodomy is. That’s just not interesting to me. Maybe there’s some merit to the argument that the people who really hate us are closet cases who are secretly riveted by our every move. If that’s the case, maybe they should just admit it & let’s all start having hot make up sex. Just an idea….

We are especially interested in serving:
1. Those who are questioning their sexuality and are concerned about some of the misinformation that they are hearing.
2. Those who are friends or relatives of someone who is gay or lesbian, and are seeking accurate and reliable information about the issues facing them.
3. Those who support equal rights for gays and lesbians and seek accurate, reliable information on which to base their arguments.
4. Those who oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, but wish to avoid the pitfalls of the massive misinformation coming from all sides of the issues – from gay-rights opponents as well as gay-rights advocates.

In pursuit of this Mission, BoxTurtle has even opened up participation to individuals such as Glen T Stanton of Focus on the Family for public debate between he and Patrick M. Chapman regarding anthropological claims FoF had made regarding SSM, just to use this as an example.

Onlike FocusOntheFamily, BoxTurtle doesn’t allow discussion only between people in the choir.

Jeremy

Wow, that was fast…and actually useful. Ok, I won’t call them “homophobes” anymore. It’s a nice concept. That said, you can dress it in all sorts of civilities, but at its core the anti-gay rhetoric remains anti-gay.

Does reading the Constitution in a “socio-historic context” include believing women have no sex drives (let alone the ability to think with enough reason as to be allowed to vote), black men are worth less than a human being, and Deism is the foundation by which America should be led? (The latter doesn’t sound so bad, actually.)

With the election of President-elect Obama to our highest office, you can all rest assured that DOMA and DADT will be rescinded (probably on Day One) and that the next 2-4 Supreme Court appointments will be far to the left of Justice Ginsberg. It’s only a matter of time before you win and get everything you want. I’ll be living in the Philippines, where the Catholic Church (at least on the surface) keeps homosexual marriage and other assorted irregularities off the books. I don’t care if you want to live with another man or woman and have sex, that’s none of my business. Have “civil unions” with all the benefits (and drawbacks – LOL) of marriage. Just don’t call it marriage!

If you can’t win in the bluest state on a day when Obama wins, with an amendment written by Jerry Brown, when are you going to win in a straight-out vote?! But just wait: POTUS and SCOTUS will ride to your extra-legal rescue!

“I don’t care if you want to live with another man or woman and have sex, that’s none of my business. Have “civil unions” with all the benefits (and drawbacks – LOL) of marriage. Just don’t call it marriage”

It can’t have all the benefits and drawbacks without also having the same name.

But the thing is, we already do. Gays refer to themselves as married, even though the state doesn’t recognize it. Our families treat us like married couples, too. Well, the happy families, anyway.
Just the other day my partner and I were having a playful disagreement at a friend’s house and she said, “Don’t get a divorce!”

While the legal hasn’t caught up, the social is progressing forward. People still refer to Tammy as Melissa Etheridge’s wife. The next generation is going to grow up with gay folks openly refering to their partners as husband, wife, spouse and won’t know until their older that what the law says. But after growing up with Aunt Selma and Aunt Christy being a couple accepted by the family as being just like anyone else, they’re not likely to understand or accept a government that tells it differently.

We’ll win. It just might take a few more years.

Bettina

Before you get too full of yourselves, Mr. & Ms. Gay, I have a shocking confession to make: Having queer friends isn’t too high on my list of personal values. Marriage is and always will be for opposite sexes only. I am not intimidated by gay activist thugs. Threats and political bullying just give more people more reasons to detest you. I used to be neutral towards gays in general. That’s changed due to the obnoxious gay agenda
and its aggressive supporters. You push – you get pushed back. Can any of you see the backlash that’s headed your way? I am disgusted by what was done to Marjorie Christoffson and El Coyote. I wish I’d been there for the “protest” against a woman exercising her perfectly legal rights. Next time, try picking on someone who won’t back down! Cowards.

I used to be neutral towards gays in general. That’s changed due to the obnoxious gay agenda and its aggressive supporters.

Let me translate that for you:

“I was happy to pretend to be nice and friendly as long as y’all acted like good little queers, showing proper gratitude for whatever crumbs I deigned to throw your way. But now that you’ve decided to stand up and request to be treated like the fully human beings you are, I’m going to let my true, bigoted, and hateful colors show.”

Richard Rush

Threats and political bullying just give more people more reasons to detest you. . . . You push – you get pushed back. . . . Next time, try picking on someone who won’t back down!

Like a broken clock, unwittingly you are occasionally correct.

Bullies (just like you) typically become enraged and cry “FOUL!, that’s not fair” when their victims fight back against their attacks.

Can any of you see the backlash that’s headed your way?

Well, Bettina, if you are a betting person, I invite you to bet against us. And please don’t bother to read our post-Stonewall history of the last 42 years – because you might decide that placing that bet is bad idea.

Priya Lynn

Bettina said “Marriage is and always will be for opposite sexes only.”.

You missed the boat on that one Bettina, in many places marriage is for gays as well and that number of places is growing all the time. Keep your blinders on though, it’ll help you to deny reality for a little while longer.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.